RIP Nestor Kirchner

Whilst I wish to express my sadness for the death of Nestor Kirchner, I hope that people in Argentina and abroad don't allow themselves to look upon his political activity with rose-coloured spectacles.

The big question now is what effect Nestor Kirchner's death will have on the presidency of his wife, Cristina. Only now will we find out which of the presidential couple truly wielded the most political power.

Reading the BBC's list of Mr. Kirchner's achievements-including leading Argentina to unprecedented economic growth and bringing human rights abusers from the 1978-1983 dictatorship to justice- one could be forgiven for believing that he had performed a miraculous job since coming to power in 2003. However, the reality is that neither his government before 2007, nor his wife's present-day administration did anything structurally to reduce inequality in this country.

Indeed, instead of reducing poverty, the government concentrated on buying the votes of the most marginalised members of society by spending millions on the bread-and-circuses policy of providing inhabitants of the poorest shanty towns with giant TV screens in order to watch the world cup, whilst children continued dying of starvation and families begged for food outside of supermarkets.

Far from being left-wing champions of the oppressed and marginalised, the Kirchners are multi-millionaire property developers who have done their mathematics-they know that by appealing to the country's poor majority through populist measures, without ever doing anything to improve this unfortunate majority's life chances in a structural way, elections will always be theirs to win.

What a Wonderful World

Do you know which are the seven wonders of the world?

Well, you might remember that back in 2007 a list of ‘The Official New 7 Wonders of the World’ was revealed by the Swiss-based, government-controlled Seven Wonders Foundation after a global voting process involving more than 100 million people. The final list included Chichen Itza in Mexico, the Taj Mahal in India, Petra in Jordan, the statue of Christ Redeemer in Brazil, the Colosseum in Rome, the Great Wall of China and Machu Picchu in Peru.

These wonders were totally different to the seven wonders of the ancient world. First of all, the ancient wonders were chosen by one man, Philon of Byzantium in 200 B.C. Secondly, only one of the list still exists today, the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt. The other six are lost to us: The Colossus of Rhodes, The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, The Lighthouse of Alexandria, The Mausoleum at Halicartassus, The Statue of Zeus and The Temple of Artemis.

However, the ancient and new wonders do have one important thing in common: they are all man-made monuments.

Indeed, in the world of such stunning natural beauty, only an animal as arrogant is a human being could create not one, but two lists of worldly wonders separated by 2,200 years and which are exclusively limited to his own creations!

I’m confident that anyone who’s shared my good fortune and been able to travel the globe will agree: the most stunning, awe-inspiring wonders of the world are natural, not man-made. What’s more, unlike the ancient wonders, these wonders are permanent, remaining for millions of years.

So the Seven Wonders Foundation’s latest initiative is, in my opinion, long overdue.

The Foundation is conducting a new global vote, which this time will select the seven wonders of the natural world. Anyone can vote. You just need to visit the New 7 Wonders site, sign up and vote for a natural wonder from the extensive shortlist. The site also contains background information on the natural wonders on the shortlist.


I believe in considered voting, regardless of the issue, so decided to visit one of the candidates for the Seven Wonders of the Natural World here in South America, the Iguazu Waterfall.



Located on the border between Argentinean state of Misiones and the Brazilian state of Paraná at 25° south, the waterfalls are set amongst subtropical rainforest.

The name Iguazu comes from the Guarani or Tupi words y (water) and ûasú (big). Legend has it that a god planned to marry a beautiful aborigine named Naipí, who fled with her mortal lover Tarobá in a canoe. In rage, the god sliced the river creating the waterfalls, condemning the lovers to an eternal fall. The first European to find the falls was the Spanish Conquistador Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca in 1541.

The waterfall system consists of 275 falls along 2.7 kilometers (1.67 miles) of the Iguazu River. Some of the individual falls are up to 82 meters (269 ft) in height, though the majority are about 64 metres (210 ft). The Devil's Throat (Garganta del Diablo in Spanish or Garganta do Diabo in Portuguese), a U-shaped, 82-meter-high, 150-meter-wide and 700-meter-long (490 by 2300 feet) cataract, is the most impressive of all, and marks the border between Argentina and Brazil.

So should Iguazu be one of the seven wonders of the natural world?

The argument for the list containing at least one waterfall is a strong one. Ask most people in the world to name a waterfall and they’ll probably say Niagara, but when the wife of Eleanor Roosevelt visited Iguazu she reportedly exclaimed “Poor Niagara!”. I’ve never had the good fortune to visit Southern Africa’s Victoria Falls, which separate Zambia and Zimbabwe, but Victoria Falls do have the largest curtain of water in the world, at over 1,600 metres wide and over 100 metres in height.

Iguazu by comparison has a greater annual flow of water and according to experts affords better views and walkways and its shape allows for spectacular vistas. At one point a person can stand and be surrounded by 260 degrees of waterfalls. The Devil's Throat section of Iguazu has water pouring into it from three sides. Likewise, because Iguazu is split into many relatively small falls, one can view these a portion at a time. Victoria does not allow this, as it is essentially one waterfall that falls into a canyon and is too immense to appreciate at once.

I’ll sign off with some more of my photos to help you decide if Iguazu merits inclusion!

All the best,
Rick

Confessions Of a Secret England Fan

A Curious Anglo-South American Spin on the forthcoming World Cup

Here in Buenos Aires the country is going world cup crazy, with giant players such as Messi, Veron and Palermo looking down at you from massive advertising billboards along the wide avenues that lead into the city centre. Messi’s advertising razor blades, Veron aftershave and Palermo TVs, but one thing they’ve got in common is that they’re all decked out in the national team’s blue and white striped shirt.

Cars drive around with flags flying out of the windows, or with photos of the players taped onto to the windows. When you ask these people who will win the world cup, they are absolutely certain. Argentina, they say, without attaching caveats such as “injuries permitting” or “with a bit of luck”. They’re absolutely certain.

Meanwhile, this Saturday the “Self-Preservation Society” will have their first secret meeting at my place in Buenos Aires. This elite group is comprised of England football fans living here in town, almost all English teachers, who’ll walk eagerly to my place, looking for all the world like any normal, respectable porteno (Buenos Aires resident). Upon entering the house they’ll be able to take off their sweater and proudly show their England shirts-to do so out on the city streets would seriously risk being beaten up-and sit down and watch England v USA. We’ll have to put the music on at high volume to hide the cheering if England should score, otherwise word might get out that ‘hay ingleses aca!’. At half time and full time it’ll be out into the garden with the football to re-enact the key moments of the game, Baddiel and Skinner style.

So before the great event gets going, here’s my anglo-south American spin on things, together with my tips for the eventual winners.

Group A

The tightest of all the groups, an argument could be made for any of the four not just qualifying, but winning the group. South Africa are greatly improved under their highly experienced Brazilian manager, Parriera. FIFA have a track record for turning a blind eye to referee’s favouring host countries (e.g. South Korea in 2002) and politically, it’s hard to imagine that they won’t be helped by having opposition goals ruled out or being allowed to get away with shameless hacking. They are also one of only two teams in the whole tournament who are used to playing at altitude, the other being Mexico.

Mexico played all of the football in their recent match against England at Wembley and were unfortunate to lose, and then went and beat Italy in Brussels. France have their eternal internal problems, everyone in the country hates the team and despises the manager, but they have unquestionable talent. They are potential winners, but find themselves low on confidence after a troubled qualifying campaign, Henry’s shameful handball(s) against Ireland and with the memory of failure in the group stages at the last European Championships.

Uruguay are something of an enigma. I love their sky blue shirt, a real fashion classic. This tiny nation of four million people, twice world cup winners, has some players of great talent, such as Forlan and Luis Suarez. However, as is to be expected with such a low population, they lack strength in depth and struggled terribly in qualifying. Would be great if they showed the more creative side of their unquestionable football heritage rather that resorting to shameless fouling like in 1986 and 1990.

South Africa and Mexico to qualify, amazingly France to go out.

Group B

This will be a tight, tactical group. Nigeria will be as strong physically as always and carry the support of the South African fans. Greece will be negative and look to strike on the counter, according to the Mourinhoesque philosophy of their German coach,Renhagel.

South Korea will run around a lot and possess genuine talent. However, most attention will centre on the circus around the Argentinean team. So many questions will be answered in the next month. Is Maradona a serious coach, or just insane? Will Maradona finally manage to find a formation that gets the best out of Messi? Neutrals who haven’t watched Argentina play recently will be amazed to see quite how anonymous ‘La pulga’ is in the blue and white shirt compared to the magic he weaves with Barca. Can a team really win the world cup playing FOUR centre-backs? Can Maradona find places for the rich array of striking talent at his disposal-Messi, Tevez, Higuain and Milito?

Knowing Maradona, my money’s on either a triumph or a total disaster. He’s promised to run through the centre of the city naked if the team win. He doesn’t do things by halves. Don’t be surprised if he’s lifting the Cup on 11th July, but don’t be surprised, either, if he’s been banned for life by FIFA by then, for running on the pitch and beating up a referee and then dishing out the same treatment to Sepp Blatter outside the dressing rooms.

Argentina and Nigeria to qualify.

Group C

If I wasn’t an England fan, I’d hate this group. It looks so boring, and I’m predicting six crap games with few goals. I refuse to make any predictions about England, apart from saying that obviously we’ve got no chance of winning the world cup. Our chances begin and end with Fabio Capello, it’s as simple as that. The USA could cause us a shock in the first game. Slovenia and Algeria both seem to be poor teams who got lucky in qualifying play-offs against superior teams (Russia and Egypt respectively).

England and USA to qualify.

Group D

Fascinating group. For me, Germany will reach the semis. Yes, their strikers are old and out of form, but they have plenty of talent. The youth (largely of Turkish extraction) that they have coming through is frightening and they’ll be an even bigger force in coming years. Serbia always seem a bit one-dimensional in major tournaments-strong in defence but lacking in ambition. Australia were stronger four years ago. Ghana have plenty of talent and strength in depth. They could well beat England in the second round.

Germany and Ghana to qualify.

Group E

Holland, Holland, Holland. Along with Spain, the most talented European team. Do they have any weaknesses? If they should play Spain in the latter stages it would be one for the purists. In this world cup it’s the Europeans who’ll play with fantasy, not the South Americans!

Denmark don’t have the attacking skills of the Danish Dynamite are but are hard enough to beat and should contest second place with Cameroon. Japan will fight gamely but go home early.

Holland and Cameroon to qualify.

Group F

I hate this group almost as much as England’s. However, listen carefully. This Italy side are better that the one that won the cup four years ago. Never ever listed amongst the favourites, bet against them at your peril. Definitely a team to avoid at all costs in the knock-out stages, capable of taking superior teams to penalties (eg. Spain in the Euros of 2008) and managed once again by the old fox, Lippi, who’s sitting in a hotel room right now analysing the weaknesses of ALL their potential opponents. Yes, they lack creativity in midfield without the talisman Totti but they have a great keeper, strong defence, strong holding midfielders and a range of attacking options.

Slovakia beat the Czech Republic in qualifying top of their group and have a surprisingly rich footballing heritage-most of the Czechoslovakia side who won the Euros in 1976 were Slovaks, rather that Czechs-and will be hard to beat.

Paraguay will be cheered on by Juan, the Paraguayan armed-security guard on the corner of my street. He’s got a gun, so I’m cheering on La Albirroja as well. I’ve been at pains to explain to him that I won’t be cheering on Italy against his team, and Daniela’s emphasised that she doesn’t give a t--- about football anyway. Here loads of Paraguayan people work in service jobs, escaping the poventy of their land-locked homeland. They are an exotic team, speaking an indigenous language, Guarani in their training camp, rather than Spanish, having an Argentinean manager, Gerardo Martino, and several naturalised Argentinean-born players, whose parents were amongst the first wave of Paraguayos who came to Buenos Aires seeking work in the 1980s. One such player is Benfica’s Cardozo who along with Manchester City’s Santa Cruz, gives Paraguay what they’ve lacked in previous tournaments, an attacking threat to balance their defensive solidity.

As for New Zealand, they should send the All Blacks, they’d stand more chance.

Italy and Paraguay to qualify

Group G

North Korea’s entire squad will probably do a runner at half time, Escape to Victory style, at half time during one of their games, rather than risk returning back to their poverty stricken homeland. If they’ve got any decent players Tisdale should sign them up for Exeter City. What do FA regulations say about signing political refugees?

Brazil are frighteningly efficient. As Capello said “They don’t give you any space”. Great defence. However, it’s always possible to nullify their attacking threat, and a weaker team could get a 0-0 against them, potentially worrying in the knock-out phase. Dunga is a great coach, even if highly unpopular in Brazil where the fans still yearn for the beautiful game. Why did Inter overlook him for the manager’s job? He knows Italian football intimately, knows the Brazilian players too.

Portugal will miss Nani. Their approach play will, as always, be a delight to watch, but what about the finished product. For me, they still lack someone to put away the bucketload of chances that they’ll certainly create. A recent 0-0 draw against the Cape Verde Islands was a classic example.

The Elephants of the Ivory Coast will qualify from this Group of Death, and go on to welcome the injured Drogba back into the side in the knockout phase.

Brazil and Ivory Coast to qualify.

Group H

I’m in love with Spain. Who wouldn’t be? Watch them once, and the other teams are just not up to the same level. They are scoring goals for fun, have an experienced coach, have lost once in the last four years, have no weaknesses and, finally, know how to win. Certainly, the favourites for the cup and it would be a wonderful thing for world football if a team playing in such an entertaining style should lift the trophy.

However, we must remember that this is a cup competition, rather than a championship, and sometimes the best team doesn’t win the cup. Were Italy the best team in the world in 2006? Were Germany the second best team in the world when they reached the final in 2002, having been thrashed 5-1 at home by England six months previously? The answer is no, and for this reason I believe that in the midst of a cold, dark, winter night in the southern hemisphere, another more cynical team will knock Spain out during the latter stages of the tournament, an Italy, Germany or Argentina.

Chile are a fascinating young team. Another team managed by an Argentine, Bielsa, La roja will play an attacking 3-1-3-3 formation and their game against Spain should be a highlight. They press the other team high up the pitch and have to hope on the fitness of their star striker, Humberto Suezo.

Honduras have loads of injuries which further complicate an already difficult task. Switzerland began their qualifying campaign losing 2-1 at home to Luxembourg, a result that should have seen them eliminated there and then.

Spain and Chile to qualify

As for the knock out stages, I’m predicting a last four containing at least three out of Italy, Germany, Argentina and Brazil. Yes, I’m boring. Looking at the draw, South Africa, Mexico or Ghana could sneak into the semis, not because they’re better than a host of other teams (Span, Holland, England, Ivory Coast to name but a few) but just because they have a kinder draw.

Brazil or Argentina will lift the trophy.

We Don't Think Much of Yours

The World is Amazed at the Lack of Choice Being Offered to Electors in the UK

News broadcasters in the Americas, Europe and Asia are united when it comes to one thing about the forthcoming UK elections: nowhere else in the western democratic world, is the electorate being offered a choice between such similar parties in terms of policy. This is all the more remarkable in the case of the UK, because three, not two, major parties are contesting the election.

In last years’ US elections the population had a genuine choice between Obama’s Democrats and the Republicans, in terms of foreign, economic and social policy. In contrast, the UK parties are desperately trying to give the appearance that they have something setting them apart from each other, but in the total absence of this, the glare of public attention has had only one place to fall, that has been perhaps inevitably on the personalities of the politicians themselves. “Oh, he’s such a good speaker” people said of Clegg after the first debate. Well, if running a country was about speaking well on TV I’d vote for Jack Nicholson. Instead, I want to know who’d have the guts to take Putin behind the bicycle sheds and deck him one if need be. Alas, the campaign is more presidential than ever, yet without a degree of charisma between them.

And boy oh boy, are these really the grand finalists in ‘Who Wants to Lead the UK 2010’? Brown-just admit that you hate the job and can’t figure out why on earth you were so desperate to get it for all those years. Does he have a reflection in the mirror? CaMoron, you’re so lacking in substance you must weigh less than a feather. Somebody weigh him just to prove I’m wrong. Nick whatsisname, you tried to make out you were the man to upset the establishment, that was until it become clear to anyone reading your biography in wikipedia that you’re very much part of it and have been since your days as a £23,000-a-year student at the select Westminster Boys’ School. Oh dear.

I’ve never been able to understand why a population such as the British, who are so well informed about politics (I’m not the only one who says it, we’re renowned for it the world over) are willing to accept such poor quality politicians. Brits moan about this and that, saying that the war in Iraq was unjust because undertaken as a result of a group of Saudis attacking the World Trade Centre in 2001, and that the war in Afghanistan was unjust as undertaken following of attacks on the London underground by British Moslems in 2005. I respect the opinions of people on both sides of public opinion regarding these wars, but other events lead me to believe that as a population the Brits are remarkably, yes remarkably naive when it comes to judging their politicians.

Let me explain. The Brits like to think that they’re tough on their politicians, expecting high standards of ethical behaviour. “We’d never let our politicians get away with corruption, like they can in southern Europe or south America” they say, quoting Joseph de Maistre, who famously stated in 1811 that in a democracy people end up with the government that they deserve. I have an alternative view. I actually feel like the UK is a kind of paradise for politicians, where they can get away with things that politicians cannot get away with elsewhere. I should probably back up such a claim, so here goes.

For many years, politicians in the UK have had to declare donations to their campaigns or personal payments received. “There you are” say the Brits, “It’s all above board now”. But is it? Why do the politicians receive the money in the first place from these individuals like Lord Ashcroft or multinational companies? “Oh, it’s because these companies and wealthy people support the party’s policy plans” say our naïve Brits. Oh, right. And I was thinking that maybe the businessman and multinationals said to the politicians “Look Browny, if you promise me to enact that new law in the next Queen’s speech, I’ll give you £1 million towards the campaign”. But of course things don’t work like that in UK politics, only in southern Europe and South America. In the UK, wealthy businesses say to the major parties “Look chaps, fair play. Here’s £1 million for your campaign. Then after you win, if our interests conflict with what you believe to be right for the country, go ahead and do what you think is right. No hard feelings. Just see the £1 million as a gift towards justice, freedom and democracy”.

Of course, the reality is that donators exact a VERY high price for their contributions and govern the policies of the next government. I remember 13 years ago watching Lord Branson at Tony Blair’s victory party. “It’s time for a change” he said. Last week I saw him on TV saying that the UK Government should pay him money as damages for having closed UK airspace due to safety fears following the volcanic eruption in Iceland. Now, he’s after millions and who does he want to pay? Not Gordon Brown, but YOU. The money for Lord Branson (he needs a few bob after all) will come out of funds for hospitals, schools, kit for soldiers in Afghanistan or just be added onto the already crippling debts the Brits are building up for their much loved grandchildren.

The second mistake that UK citizens make is that they still believe that the politicians run the UK. If there was any doubt about where the real power lies in Britain, the rescue packages set up for the banks in the wake of the Lehman Brothers crisis showed that it is they, the banks that call the tune. Already they are making giant profits again, thanks to the money provided by Mr & Mrs Average in the UK, the taxpayers who propped them up. Business runs the world and politicians are their puppets. The only reason that big business and the politicians themselves don’t come out with it and tell us straight is that it doesn’t sound very democratic, and might start people asking if we do actually live in a democracy in which we’re all equal under the law or not. We couldn’t have that, so let’s continue giving the plebs the idea that the politicians are in charge, OK?

The third mistake that UK citizens make is that they pay their taxes. Just think. Why does this taboo exist in the UK about paying taxes? Everyone rounds on ‘cheats’ who don’t pay, without thinking for a moment: Who does this belief system benefit most of all? The fact is that most money that the public contribute in recent years has been spent on:

1) Wars in Asia.
2) Saving a right load of Bankers.
3) Paying pensions, which is a noble and generous activity when we consider that the people making the tax contribution will almost certainly never live to see a government pension of any real value in 30 or 40 years time.
4) Building up one of the largest debts of any country in the world which will be left as a present for your grandchildren to pay.

If British people launched a tax strike, maybe government would think again about how they spend all the money that they receive. But that won’t happen.

Finally, the Brits have a relationship with their leaders like the Jews with the Mesiah. They’re always waiting for the savior to come. They make near deities of their leaders. Most people are still fed up with Blair because he turned out to be human after all. What a cheek! We thought he was going to be out savior! Instead, the Brits should be angry with themselves for having placed him on a pedestal.

Will the Brits learn? I’m not sure and the smart money’s against it. Why? Because as someone said in 1811, “People end up with……”

Photos from the Andes

Easter in Mendoza and the Andes

"Mendoza...." our Argentinian friends had told us, "...es hermosa. Es la ciudad mas limpia en todo el pais!" So we decided to go there and see if it really was this: a beautiful city and the cleanest in the whole of the country.

Hermosa, meaning beautiful, is quite a strong adjective in Spanish, also used to describe., amongst other things, beautiful women. Therefore, I was expecting another city to rank alongside the lovely ones that I've been fortunate enough to visit in my travels, such as Bath in the UK, Venice in Italy, Salzburg in Austria and Munich in Germany. Even my Lonely Planet guide book sung the city's praises, saying it was one of the most beautiful in the whole of Latin America.

So we set off on a two-hour internal flight towards the 'ciudad hermosa'. The landscape below had been transformed by agriculture into a kind of grid, and our trip carried us first two up, and then eight across on the giant gameboard that is the Argentinian 'interior', a term which corresponds with the Australian term 'outback' and the Devonian term 'middle of bloody nowhere'.

Soon the landscape was looking more and more parched and we caught a glimpse of the Andes rising behind the city and landed in Mendoza. Would it match up to its billing?

The answer soon became clear. As we left the airport in our hire car, we noticed that the roads had massive potholes and no signs whatsoever, making it easy to damage the car or get completely lost. Ahhh, hermosa thought I. Not since I was in Munich have I seen such lovely, well maintained and logically organised streets.

Next of all, our trip into the delightful city carried us past twin shanty towns, favelas, on either side of the road, surrounded by open air rubbish dumps on which children scavenged for something that they could later sell. Ahhh, hermosa. Not since I visited Bath have I seen such a architecture.

Then, when we'd found our hotel we decided to go out for a stroll. The city centre had a river running through it, which was running more or less dry, which unfortunately was not the case for the open sewers by the side of the road. How it made me remember the Danube in Vienna.Bloody Hermosa.

Finally, after finishing our meals we were sitting down outside a restaurant drinking a beer when local children came up to us, not begging for money, but asking us if they could have the scraps of food that we'd left on our plates. We happily gave them our food. Judging by the look of the poor kids they hadn't eaten or washed in days. It was yet another one of those 'hermosa' moments, demonstrating the unqualified success of the Argentinian government's welfare problem.

Fortunately, we knew better than to trust lonely planet and had arranged to drive up to the border with Chile to see Aconcagua, the highest mountain in the world outside of the Himelayas. The 200km drive from Mendoza was phenomenal, the mountains gradually growing in size and multiplying their shades of pink, red and grey as we headed up to 3000 metres in altitude. Here Daniela started to feel a bit of altitude sickness, so we explored the plateau and took some great photos. We visited the 'Puente de los Incas' where minerals contained in thermal hot water create multi-coloured rock formations. The surrounding colours were wonderful, as was the wind, which seemed to be talking to you, telling stories of far-off places. Here, a lungful of air was so pure that it almost made you drunk. A sign on the roadside said that we were 1,222kms from Buenos Aires, and only 150kms from Santiago, Chile.

This experience, us alone with the landscape, the whispering wind and sheer vastness of the Andes was, without doubt, hermosa.

Could Mountain Building Be the Solution to Climate Change?

Those Scientists who actually acknowledge that climate change is, at least partly, a result of human activity have, over recent years, split into two different camps when it comes to how the problem should be addressed. The first group consists of those who believe that a large-scale change in human behaviour is necessary, for example through individuals reducing their carbon footprint, governments utilising renewable energy resources and increased levels of recycling. The second group is comprised of scientists who believe that large-scale changes in human behaviour are difficult to bring about, and who instead focus their attention on developing technological solutions to global warming, whilst accepting that humans will continue polluting, creating more and more rubbish and carbon as countries such as China and India industrialise.



This group of scientists has already produced numerous, hard-to-believe ideas for future macro-engineering projects, such as massive machines which could capture carbon in the atmosphere and bury it underground, or even giant mirrors which could be positioned in space between the earth and the sun and used to reflect some of the solar rays away from planet earth.



Support for this approach has gained ground in recent years. Indeed, the recent Copenhagen conference underlined just how difficult it will be to produce reductions in emissions in a world in which economic growth is seen as highly desirable and 200 countries at different stages of development and with different interests find it impossible to agree a common position towards the care of our biosphere. Maybe, just maybe we should give up once and for all on trying to modify peoples behaviour by creating armies of environmentally aware recyclers and instead look to technology for the solution.



Why has nothing yet been done to implement any of these macro-engineering projects? Well, the major problem has been the large costs involved, which in a period of global economic crisis has rendered their implementation impossible.



However, the good news is that a solution is at hand and that it comes from the most unlikely of sources: pre-Colombian South American technology!



Let me explain. In western Argentina, in the dry, desert-like foothills of the Andes, lies the city of Mendoza. It was founded two thousand years ago by the Incas. In the 19th century scientists were fascinated as to how the Incas could have created a city in such a dry, hostile environment. They discovered that as long ago as 500 A.D,, the Incas had already constructed a network of canals to carry water from the peaks of the Andes, towering over 5,000 metres above the city, down into the desert below. These channels meant that in the areas surrounding the city, where less than 5 inches on rain falls each year, agriculture thrives, producing high quality olive oil and vineyards stretching to the horizon which produce some of the most sought-after wines in the world. In short, the irrigation channels built by the Incas produced a land of milk and honey where otherwise there would have been a desert.



Scientists with the Argentinean government climate change action unit, having heard about the work of the ancient Incas, starting speculating. “We thought”, says Abril Pez, head scientist of the group, “that if we could construct similar, man-made peaks in dry, desert regions, that these peaks would attract rain and snow, as the Andes do above Mendoza, and that specially designed channels could carry the precipitation down to ground level, to produce high-quality conditions for agriculture”.



The group discovered that the major problem would be finding materials which could be used to construct such artificial peaks, which would need to reach at least 5,000 metres in height. “We thought long and hard” continues Abril, “before hitting on the solution. Mankind today produces so much rubbish that the landfill sites are overflowing. We just don't know where to put all the rubbish that we produce. We will use this rubbish, which previously went into landfill sites choking our towns and cities, to construct man-made mountains in desert and semi-desert areas where agriculture or cities need more precipitation, such as in Australia, the western USA, the Sahel zone in Africa and the Middle East. Engineers will build irrigation channels into these constructions and hey presto, ice, snow and rain falling onto the peaks will flow down into the deserts below, making them bloom”.



Pez’s group has already received funding from the Government’s of Western Australia and California to continue their research, and they are conducting research into suitable locations to commence building before 2020.



Buenos Aires, 1st April 2010, 8.57 am